Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2007 October 28

= October 28 =

Partitioning and Booting
I have a 60GB hard disk partitioned as follows:

1. 1GB Linux Swap

2. 29GB ext3 with Kubuntu and GRUB

3. 30GB ntfs Windows XP Home

Currently, I am able to dual boot Kubuntu and Windows. I want to reformat partitions 1 and 2 into ntfs to hold data only, but I think doing so would erase GRUB, leaving my computer unable to start Windows.

How can I restore the MBR (if it even involves this) so that I can boot Windows again?

Will the fixMBR utility on my XP install CD work?

- WikiY Talk 01:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Run fixmbr and fixboot from the XP recovery console (boot from the install disk and hit R) to restore the XP MBR -- ⁪ffroth 03:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ripping/Converting VCDs with 2 Audio Channels
Hi, how can I rip or convert VCDs that have two language tracks? I am currently using VCDGear to rip .DAT into .MPG then I convert it using Videora ipod Converter. I have VCDs (such as Karaoke VCDs) that have two language audio tracks, is there a softwarre that allows me to choose which audio track to rip or convert? thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.194.91 (talk) 02:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Processor-memory clock-speed coordination
I have a computer with an AMD64 x2 processor at 2100 mega-hertz, and a giga-byte of memory, in a single module, at 800 mega-hertz.


 * 1) Will the memory slow down to coordinate with the processor?
 * 2) By how much?
 * 3) How can I fix this without spending much money?
 * 4) Will the coordination change if I add one more one-giga-byte module of memory (so as to use the second channel)?

—Masatran 13:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

however, everything depends on your motherboard configuration and/or issues with it. the best free thing to do is (after backing up everything you need) to upgrade to the latest bios. If you have more time, update device drivers for your computer. --Kushalt 16:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC) PS: Are you satisfied with your current computer performance? Please let us know of further questions.
 * Your memory will not slow down.
 * not applicable (hereafter referred to as n/a)
 * n/a
 * Both modules will continue to run at 800 MHz.


 * More details: I got this doubt when reading CHIP (magazine), India, October 2007, article Memory Dilemma. It says that the processor clockspeed should ideally be a multiple of half-the-memory-clockspeed. Based on the article, I calculated that the memory would be working at 700 mega-hertz (instead of 800). The computer is fast, but a further speed-up would be good.


 * —Masatran 16:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are a general PC user with Windows XP or earlier operating system, (and not running Adobe Creative Suite 3 or anything heavy duty like that), I would say anything over 667 MHz of memory speed is awesome. My advise is don't sweat the small stuff (unless are on an academic side of things, in which case, please dig deeper ... ) Regards, Kushal --Kushalt 18:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your motherboard will compensate for any clock speed changes. Don't worry about memory clock speeds unless you're an OCer. - Woo ty   [ Woot? ]  [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam! ] 00:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

RAM & wikipedia
All of a sudden, while viewing wikipedia, firefox has decided to start sucking up 200,000 kB of RAM for no particular reason, leading to periodic freezes and crashes. Any idea why this might be happening? I know it's not the advertising banner because I have that thing set to display:none in my monobook.-- VectorPotentialTalk 13:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I restarted my browser and it seems to be all better now, but I'm still curious what caused it in the first place.-- VectorPotentialTalk 13:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd guess that Firefox has a memory leak. Do you have the latest version ? StuRat 15:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2.0.0.8, and only the one tab open. It's never happened before so it's a little odd for it to suddenly need so much RAM and then return to normal when I restart it. For comparison, right now it's running on 49,000 kB, which is around what it usually uses.-- VectorPotentialTalk 17:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The latest version is Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.8 as of October 18, 2007. I have a few questions. s e c u r i t y [ a t ] m ozilla [d o t ] o r g or maybe (more likely) it is already reported. --Kushalt 15:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Which operating system are you using? Even a huge one gigabyte of memory might not be sufficient for some operating systems.
 * Which other tabs did you have open at that time? (Did you have only one tab? If so, discard this question.)
 * Mozilla Firefox's using 200 MB of RAM might just be normal. If you think it is a bug, you can contact the Mozilla team on their website or by email at
 * Firefox is a memory hog- vista doesn't change that -- ⁪ffroth 17:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Especially since I'm still using XP.-- VectorPotentialTalk 17:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ? I was replying to kushal's comment, not to your question -- ⁪ffroth 03:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, never mind, didn't catch the wiki-link to windows vista-- VectorPotentialTalk 11:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Use the latest, stable version of Firefox (2.0.*)
 * Utilize both memory channels, if yours is a dual-channel motherboard
 * Add memory, especially if you use many (ten or more) tabs in Firefox


 * —Masatran 16:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't buy this. I've been using 2.0.0.8 ever since my machine auto-upgraded to it.  I only have 512Mb of RAM in my machine and I've had 20 or more tabs open lots of time without any obvious problems.  My son is on the same revision and his machine only has 256Mb.  (Admittedly these are both Linux boxes - but I don't see how that changes anything as far as Firefox is concerned).  The idea that twice this amount might not be enough because of some horrible problem with FireFox simply doesn't stack up.  There is a better answer out there somewhere. SteveBaker 21:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I've solved the mystery anyway, it happened again, only this time it asked me if I wanted to stop running whatever script was running. Which means it's either a bad interaction with my popups, or it's the advertising banner with the built in flash video, that even though it isn't displaying, may still be loading prior to being hidden by my monobook.css. -- VectorPotentialTalk 22:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are you hiding it with monobook? You know it still gets downloaded- just not displayed (I think). There was a link a few donation drives back to "shut up and stop bugging me" and I haven't seen a donation banner since, as long as I'm logged in.. -- ⁪ffroth 23:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Visual Basic Express 2005
I started coding just after the first assembly languages and higher level languages were developed. Had I started my career a little earlier when accounting machines were programmed by wiring I would have had code in machine language. BASIC came along after I learned Assembler, Fortran, COBOL, RPG, and PL1. The idea behind BASIC was simplicity for getting the basic idea down in code free of the programming details that rob whatever idea you are working on of allocated time. For years this notion of BASIC was respected until Visual Basic Express 2005. Instead of supporting BASIC as a higher level language which it was meant to be (adding the capability to VB6 to save a picture in jpg format, for instance), BASIC has turned into low level pseudo C code. What does the future hold for higher level programming in light of VB Express? 71.100.9.205 17:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Visual Basic sucks. VB.NET just makes it suck a little less- it's actually somewhat consistent now and really object-oriented instead of just having a few playskool object-oriented features -- ⁪ffroth 17:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Except the point of VB was not to be a robust language, but a quicky "learning" language that you could use to build up fast GUIs and proofs-of-concept. So if you mean it "sucks" because it is not as quick to execute or as powerful as C++, well, duh, that's not really what it was ever supposed to be or claimed to be. --24.147.86.187 20:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I see Visual Basic's primary life these days is as a scripting language—VBScript—not as a primary programming language used for making executables. This is probably for the better—VBScript allows you do much of what you might have wanted to do with Visual Basic proper (it is relatively easy to use), while VB.NET is not such a big leap up from VBScript to allow real programming but with a more consistent object oriented paradigm. As for the future, I see futher bifurcation between interpreted (scripting) and compiled (executable) languages, which makes some logical sense. I do agree that some of VB.NET's changes seem to add a lot of complication and lack of intuitiveness to the code, though, in order to accomplish much of the same features—basically it makes you know (and see) a lot of things that are explicitly called that used to be implicitly called (the "Hello world" comparison in the VB.NET article here is a great example of this) or optional, which adds a lot of coding clutter and looks a lot scarier than it originally did. I agree that VB.NET has pretty much lost sight of what the purpose of VB was supposed to be, alas. --24.147.86.187 20:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I sincerely feel that Microsoft has done us a disservice by forcing us to write in Visual Basic Express 2005 to have the functionality of say saving an image on the clipboard in jpg format instead of bmp, or a mired of other little things that an upgrade of VB6 could accommodate very nicely to make prototyping and development easier instead of more difficult and turning the BASIC programming environment into a low level environment unsuitable for prototyping and concept development. If Microsoft had our interests at heart it would have instead spent the time and effort to write a more sophisticated compiler that would present options in the form of a checklist or questionnaire as the compile executed or as a separate compile configuration file. As is Visual Basic Express 2005 is unsuitable for development and prototyping unless you have a programming staff to manage the low level details while you and your partners concentrate on the concept.  Clem   04:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Live CD to Live USB
I'm trying to get Oralux working on a Linutop, which means converting it from Live CD to Live USB. I do not understand most of the instructions I've found on the subject. This site seems to be saying that I can treat it just like a hard drive: http://kubuntuforums.net/forums/index.php?topic=3081748.0 I formatted the drive with ext2 and used the Knoppix installer to install Oralux on the flash drive, just like the Oralux FAQ suggests for hard drives, but Linutop is still telling me it can't detect an operating system. What am I doing wrong? 172.166.19.225 22:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You need to be able to set USB as a boot device in the bios, i'm not familiar with Linutop, have you done that? If you don't have the option to set USB as a boot device you may not be able to do it. Vespine 00:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Linutop can boot only from USB, so I assume it's automatically set. It does boot from the flash drive it came with. 172.166.19.225 00:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

figure out what bootloader oralux wants to use (probably syslinux) then make sure that its set up properly. if its syslinux you will probably have to check that the config files make sense and then run syslinux or extlinux to install the bootloader onto the USB device. Thats my guess -- 04:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diletante (talk • contribs)